Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106387 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 64671 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2019 15:27:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-oi1-f169.google.com) (209.85.167.169) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2019 15:27:42 -0000 Received: by mail-oi1-f169.google.com with SMTP id t76so66404165oih.4 for ; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 05:54:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zZu39CDo5HqIQ1E69Lv2r1qPElx5QooPWFgYKa3H6Qg=; b=YMMK4mfvNjv4XQb+qUaffIdBwBtz3rTdmPVr5NoLTkPpQhwwlCe/GrJ8YRMtFE1WiG w9oCmPzPsW1JH+k38P7ECXbsBZLqHxxuhwjxmE6tTq0bWHKPZZdn3nhxMzWkjmSAc6+H B12v0yu1W6mppxPUhiWmWl2l5FSvokshRvC9OY2IcUGj1QhsMIF6Em1P4732xQwAhsHV ZF6ztNGMe+tHed6NSDmJJ4FNVLCKAoaFTZiDa/8WH+X/t7DTDxNHSPKoVpQ9ChfTpJaU ZNOnmuz7S7vc0ZH72pFy0/3490ZY7WQ40ckxW3RcC/+1Bu89jbWA49BAmw5fxf1QDZFN kqxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zZu39CDo5HqIQ1E69Lv2r1qPElx5QooPWFgYKa3H6Qg=; b=MtNAqE6uLNNpGdZwqcCt5wfhVMkadL136A5l6SKbrFHhHY043z97J2Yn2+eh5TdAhQ cvWLvHIMH2JklHH20BJAfuuVeOmPMH6tVAlvzetM4mRK/7mdszIHNwj2vaCXjFpeKEay JYwqlxIlPc83NkgkveI9sNutk2w6hNJbnLswBHb5tGPoOUSV374f79MtfPbTjwvAKsw+ zKLWGyjYTckJvnbvAdQQHoHYjISGlYgiWgVUsxehoILLIC39+64eHLnbq0T5yvwlFX5Z yHFERSGrJJI9RDBfUJcZFfbdQiUsACckRFR3AuK8yGa/FO6nBm1rdWoVW1+fAJnCX4Rn bEPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWNfLhv+z3vZFhpf3koWzAg14Ph8XUiGUL7zUlAOh7v6+WEWF34 cKLD12gesgfBIU9wffzy8J6X8UEaJg7/74VTZSw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxa6qYD8hGxwX60/a87m4QcSQbN7P4CW2VGzyvZ/Vt/YtMOP70PFtxEAvqCh1Ed9GSwzOlNAxN0nH0a8KjT0as= X-Received: by 2002:a02:3342:: with SMTP id k2mr3994460jak.89.1565096061075; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 05:54:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9A71CBB7-8F0B-40E4-B90E-60108FA52D7D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9A71CBB7-8F0B-40E4-B90E-60108FA52D7D@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:53:55 +0200 Message-ID: To: Rowan Collins Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c28a00058f7252a9" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Improve visibility of RFC negative feedback From: kjarli@gmail.com (Lynn) --000000000000c28a00058f7252a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:33 PM Rowan Collins wrote: > The key difference between an RFC and a discussion thread is that it > presents a summary or synthesis, which can be much more easily digested > than a full discussion. It is also, crucially, editable, so can be reworded > or corrected to clarify points; in an email thread, a reader often has to > read the first attempt at conveying something, then follow a series of > errata down the sub-thread. > > As Zeev mentioned, it might be enough to have a standard format for this, > rather than always requiring it. > > Hi, Taking the current RFC ( https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counterargument/deprecate_php_short_tags) as example, how do we as reader differentiate between people's counter arguments? When I read those points, I feel like this is something agreed upon by the group as a whole, rather than a person and I know that not everyone might these points as (valid) counter arguments or have different opinions about each. My proposal is to add a name to either a section or argument itself, or perhaps each person could create a page with their counter arguments, meaning the current page becomes an index. This makes it very clear to see who provides which arguments. Regards, Lynn van der Berg --000000000000c28a00058f7252a9--